When “Pulling a Sickie” Backfires: $6,555 Costs — and Your Appeal on the LineIn Sum & Lam (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 16, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) refused a self-represented appellant’s second attempt to adjourn an appeal hearing—after medical letters claimed she lacked capacity, but her conduct in the appeal showed the opposite. The day ended with the appeal briefly adjourned only for procedural fairness, a clear warning that the appeal may proceed without her next time, and a fixed “costs thrown away” order of $6,555 payable within 28 days.Facts:The appellant appealed property orders made under Pt VIII of the Family Law Act 197

In Dalal & Bunha [2026] FedCFamC1A 13, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) dismissed a property appeal where the self-represented appellant alleged procedural unfairness, lack of transparency, bias/recusal error, erroneous fact-finding, and inadequate reasons . Deputy Chief Justice McClelland held the primary hearing was conducted fairly, the challenged rulings were within discretion, the bias allegations were unfounded, and the key findings (including foreign-asset ownership) were reasonably open on the evidence .🧩 Facts and IssuesKey factsThe appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal (15 August 2025) challenging property and ancillar

Nicolescu & Umar [2026] FedCFamC1A 15: The Family Report Fight That Went NowhereWhat Was the Appellant Trying to Achieve — and Why?The Appellant’s ObjectiveThe appellant (the mother) was attempting to stop the Family Report from being used and to force the appointment of a new single expert.Specifically, she sought to appeal interlocutory orders made on 15 December 2025 which:Refused to exclude the existing Family Report from evidence; andAllowed the parties to instead conference with the single expert and put written questions to clarify the report (Orders 3 and 8).📍 Paras [4]–[6]Why She Tried to AppealThe appellant was dissatisfied with the content and conclusions of the Family Report

🧭 Introductory ParagraphIn Ritter & Hermann (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1F 19, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) exercised its powers under the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) to authorise the issue of a child’s passport without maternal consent, following clear and unexplained non-compliance with earlier court orders. The case is a sharp reminder that parenting disputes about international travel are not determined by obstruction, delay, or opposition in principle—particularly where a party has already agreed to comply and then failed to do so. The Court also imposed fixed costs against the non-compliant parent, reinforcing the consequences of disregarding int

In Fierro & Bien [2026] FedCFamC1A 14, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) considered whether an appeal hearing should be adjourned for one day due to the appellant’s unavoidable attendance at a Tribunal-ordered mediation. Although modest in scope, the decision is a useful illustration of appellate case-management discretion, the operation of s 32 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), and the Court’s pragmatic approach to procedural fairness—particularly where the appellant is self-represented.🧩 Facts and IssuesKey FactsThe appellant, Mr Fierro, was self-represented (litigant in person).He filed an Amended

Abramsson & Abramsson (No 8) [2025] FedCFamC1F 919 is one of the most confronting parenting judgments of 2025. After an appeal and rehearing, the Court made the rare and extreme order that two very young children live with their father and spend no time with their mother, despite evidence of mutual conflict and acknowledged love between the children and the mother.The decision is a stark illustration of how persistent emotional abuse of a child, lack of insight, and refusal to accept responsibility can ultimately outweigh biological attachment, history of primary care, and even a parent’s genuine love.FACTSThe FamilyTwo children: X (born 2018) and Y (born 2021) (¶1, ¶11)Parents married i

In Jefford & Kaluza [2026] FedCFamC1A 6, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Hogan, Altobelli & Jarrett JJ) overturned draconian parenting orders that completely severed a father’s contact with his two children. The appellate judges found that the trial judge had failed to consider crucial prior findings, ignored credibility evidence, and misapplied the principles governing unacceptable risk and evidentiary assessment under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The decision is a powerful reminder that risk assessments in child protection cases must be evidence-based, holistic, and procedurally fair.Facts and IssuesFactsThe parties, Mr Jefford (father) and Ms

The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (McClelland DCJ, Riethmuller & Kari JJ) in Arrighetti & Qodirova [2026] FedCFamC1A 1 delivered a landmark appellate judgment clarifying the scope of judicial discretion in cases involving emotional and psychological harm to children. The Court dismissed a mother’s appeal challenging draconian parenting orders that imposed a six-month moratorium on contact with her daughter, indefinite supervision thereafter, and a total prohibition on contact between the child and the maternal grandmother. The case underscores the balance courts must strike between protecting children from emotional harm and preserving their right to

The appellate judgment in Leena & Leena [2025] FedCFamC1A 241 (Hogan, Altobelli & McNab JJ) serves as a critical reminder that judicial neutrality must not only exist but must be seen to exist. The Court partially allowed an appeal from parenting and property orders after finding that the trial judge’s premature comments and conduct during the hearing gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The case further addressed errors in the trial judge’s approach to contributions in the property settlement, setting aside those orders and remitting the matter for rehearing before a different judge.Facts and IssuesThe appellant (mother) and respondent (father) disputed both parenting arr

In Tekla & Tekla [2025] FedCFamC1A 245, Justice Riethmuller of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) delivered a landmark decision on the operation of the Division 2 costs scale and the proper application of “solicitor and client” costs in family law proceedings. The Court allowed the appeal, finding the primary judge had no evidentiary basis for a $78,955 lump-sum costs order and instead fixed the amount at $64,685.98. The judgment provides critical clarification on how courts should determine reasonable rates and time for legal work under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and how the discretion under s 114UB of the

In Verber & Verber [2025] FedCFamC1A 240, a complex intersection of legal professional privilege, procedural fairness, and the right to inspect court records came before the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (McClelland DCJ, Riethmuller & Kari JJ). The husband, his brother, and a family trust sought to overturn an order permitting the wife to inspect limited documents from prior family law proceedings involving the husband’s parents. The appellants argued that the wife’s access would exploit privileged information misused in earlier litigation. The Full Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the inspection would breach privilege or amount t

In Takenaka & Maddox [2025] FedCFamC1A 243, Justice Campton of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) dismissed an appeal by a self-represented father who sought to overturn extensive parenting orders. The appeal arose from findings that the father engaged in a sustained, four-year campaign of intimidation, threats, and coercive control against the mother. Despite voluminous filings and claims of judicial error, the Court upheld the trial judge’s assessment that the father’s domineering behaviour and lack of insight rendered shared care unsafe. The decision underscores the judiciary’s increasing recognition of coercive control as family violence under s 4AB of the Family Law A